| Literature DB >> 35456892 |
Preeti J Muire1, Marc A Thompson1, Robert J Christy1, Shanmugasundaram Natesan1.
Abstract
Delayed healing of traumatic wounds often stems from a dysregulated immune response initiated or exacerbated by existing comorbidities, multiple tissue injury or wound contamination. Over decades, approaches towards alleviating wound inflammation have been centered on interventions capable of a collective dampening of various inflammatory factors and/or cells. However, a progressive understanding of immune physiology has rendered deeper knowledge on the dynamic interplay of secreted factors and effector cells following an acute injury. There is a wide body of literature, both in vitro and in vivo, abstracted on the immunomodulatory approaches to control inflammation. Recently, targeted modulation of the immune response via biotechnological approaches and biomaterials has gained attention as a means to restore the pro-healing phenotype and promote tissue regeneration. In order to fully realize the potential of these approaches in traumatic wounds, a critical and nuanced understanding of the relationships between immune dysregulation and healing outcomes is needed. This review provides an insight on paradigm shift towards interventional approaches to control exacerbated immune response following a traumatic injury from an agonistic to a targeted path. We address such a need by (1) providing a targeted discussion of the wound healing processes to assist in the identification of novel therapeutic targets and (2) highlighting emerging technologies and interventions that utilize an immunoengineering-based approach. In addition, we have underscored the importance of immune engineering as an emerging tool to provide precision medicine as an option to modulate acute immune response following a traumatic injury. Finally, an overview is provided on how an intervention can follow through a successful clinical application and regulatory pathway following laboratory and animal model evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: bioengineering; immunoengineering; inflammation; injury; trauma; wounds
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35456892 PMCID: PMC9032453 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23084074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Illustration of the cutaneous wound healing process. The three phases of open wound healing are inflammatory phase: 0–~48 h (yellow area); proliferative phase: 2–10 days (blue area); and remodeling phase: 10 days–12 months (green area). Overlap of the inflammatory and proliferative phases (dark blue area) is also referred to the late inflammatory phase. The time scale starts at the time of injury and extends through 12 months post injury. The upward arrows indicate increased expression and the downward arrows indicate decreased expression of the molecules. This figure was created with BioRender.com (accessed in June 2020).
A compilation of the essential growth factors, their cell source and functions during the wound healing process.
| Growth Factors | Cell Source | Functions | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) |
Keratinocytes Mast cells Fibroblasts Endothelial cell Smooth muscle cells Chondrocytes Macrophages T cells | Chemotactic for fibroblasts; | [ |
| Epidermal growth factor (EGF) |
Platelets Activated macrophages Fibroblasts | Mitogenic for keratinocytes and fibroblasts; | [ |
| Platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) |
Platelets Keratinocytes Macrophages Endothelial cells Fibroblasts | Chemotactic for neutrophils macrophages, fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells; | [ |
| Transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) |
Platelets Keratinocytes Macrophages Lymphocytes Fibroblasts | Most important factor in wound healing; | [ |
| Vascular Endothelial growth factor (VEGF) |
Platelets Neutrophils Macrophages Endothelial cells Smooth muscle cells Fibroblasts Mesenchymal cells | Increases vascular permeability; | [ |
Figure 2Overview of the current and emerging immunomodulatory (generic) and immune engineering (targeted) approaches for wound healing. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); Platelet derived growth factor (PDGF); Fibroblast growth factor (FGF); Interleukin (IL)-10; Transforming growth factor β (TGFβ); PGE2; Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4); Thromboxane A2 synthase (TXAS); Cyclooxygenases 1 and 2 (COX-1 and COX-2); Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS); Reactive oxygen species (ROS); and Superoxide dismutase (SOD). The red T shaped symbols indicate inhibition or blocking of that particular molecule/process.
Summary of selected immunomodulatory approaches to promote wound healing.
| Approach | Injury Type | Outcomes | Limitations | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| NSAIDs | Debrided combat-related extremity wounds |
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treated group had significantly decreased concentrations of inflammatory cytokines, interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). |
Patients represented a very specific cohort of injuries (blast injury). Frequency of debridement operations may have skewed some results. | [ |
| COX-2 Inhibitor (Celecoxib) | Sciatic Nerve Crush |
In comparison with control group, celecoxib treatment had significant beneficial effects on sciatic functional index (SFI), with a significantly better score on day 7. |
Small sample size and large data variability. | [ |
| Skeletal muscle ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury | Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) inhibitor (1400W) |
1400 W markedly improved the recovery speed of vessel diameter and blood flow. | [ | |
| Manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) mimetic molecule, MnE | Dermal full-thickness excision injury |
MnE significantly advanced wound closure by two days. MnE regulated antioxidant defense systems. | [ | |
| Injectable curcumin-loaded Zn-Al layer double hydroxide nanocomposites | Intramuscular implantation |
Curcumin and Curcumin Nano hybrid revealed good tissue repair in acute and chronic wounds with good bio-compatibility and healing activity with collagen formation. | [ | |
|
| ||||
| Modification to surface topography and hydrophilicity | In vitro, neutrophil activation and macrophage polarization |
Hierarchy of least-to-greatest pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion: Rough Hydrophilic surfaces → Rough surfaces → Smooth surfaces Hierarchy of least-to-greatest anti-inflammatory cytokine secretion: Smooth surfaces → Rough surfaces → Rough Hydrophilic surfaces Hierarchy of least- to-greatest inflammatory cell secreted factors (CXCL-10, MCP-1): Rough Hydrophilic surfaces → Rough surfaces → Smooth surfaces. |
In vitro work may have provided a limited example to determine actual mechanisms of action compared to in vivo studies. | [ |
| Heparin-immobilized copolymers of L--lactide (LA) and 5-methyl-5-benzyloxycar-bonate-1,3-dioxan-2-one (MBC) on metal stents | Porcine coronary artery injury model |
Heparinized copolymers effectively reduced platelet adhesion and protein adsorption while increasing the plasma recalcification time and thromboplastin time in vitro. |
No in-stent thrombosis was observed in any stenting groups. The efficacy of heparinized copolymers in reducing the rate of thrombosis was not tested. | [ |
| Biologically derived surgical mesh materials | In situ polarization of macrophages responding to implanted mesh materials |
There was a strong correlation between the early macrophage response to implanted materials and the outcome of tissue remodeling. Increased numbers of M2 macrophages and higher ratios of M2:M1 macrophages within the site of remodeling at 14 days were associated with more positive remodeling outcomes. |
Limited and potentially non-specific surface markers for macrophage characterization were employed. No efforts to quantify M1 and M2 macrophages concurrently. | [ |
| Dermal ECM (D-ECM) or Urinary bladder matrix ECM (UBM-ECM) coating polypropylene mesh | In vivo macrophage polarization following mesh implantation in a rodent model |
Uncoated polypropylene mesh elicited a greater M1 response at the mesh fiber surface, which was decreased by each ECM coating type beginning at 7 days. Diminished M1 response was accompanied by a reduction in the number of foreign body giant cells at 14 and 35 days. |
M1 and M2 macrophages were identified by single surface markers, markers of other macrophage subtypes were not considered. | [ |
| Keratin and Collagen coatings (films) | In vitro macrophage polarization |
Exposure of macrophage cell line to keratin biomaterial substrates prompted a shift toward M2 phenotype Collagen control surfaces produced both M1 and M2 macrophage populations. | [ | |
|
| ||||
| Macrophage polarization | In vitro model—monocytes embedded in modified hydrogel |
Increased number of M2 macrophages. |
M2 macrophages released large amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines. | [ |
| Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) | Mouse lethal radiation injury |
MSC influenced macrophages showed a distinct gene expression profile that positively correlated with pathways that promote tissue repair. MSC influenced macrophages enhance survival of mice experiencing radiation injuries. | [ | |
| Human bone maow stromal cells (BM-SC) | Specialized in vitro culture for modulating cell phenotype |
Adipose tissue-derived stromal cell protein expression phenotype was similar to that of human bone marrow stromal cells. Cells cultured under adipogenic or osteogenic conditions promoted differential expression of growth stimuli. | [ | |
|
| ||||
| Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC) Extracellular vesicles (EVs) | Bone marrow-derived macrophage polarization, Cardiotoxin-induced skeletal muscle injury |
MSC EVs elicited a significant switch from a M1 to a M2 macrophage phenotype. MSC EVs in vivo contributed to decreased IL-6 and NOS2 with increased myogenic markers (Pax7, MyoD and Myhc). | [ | |
| Amniotic fluid stem cell-derived extracellular vesicle | Cardiotoxin induced tibialis anterior mouse muscle injury |
Secretomes were capable of promoting cell proliferation, migration and protection from senescence in vitro. Secretomes promoted muscle regeneration in vivo. | [ | |
Summary of selected immune engineering approaches to promote wound healing.
| Approach | Injury Type | Outcomes | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Intra-arterial VEGF gene delivery by magnetic DNA nano spheres | Rabbit limb ischemia model |
VEGF delivery promoted angiogenesis and arteriogenesis in ischemic limbs by alleviating the high oxidative stress and inflammatory micro-environment. | [ |
| Nanoparticle-based pcDNA3.1-CYP2J2 plasmid DNA (pDNA) delivery system (nanoparticle/pDNA complex) | Mouse limb ischemia model |
Improved inflammatory micro-environment; angiogenesis and muscle repair. | [ |
| Hydrogel loading plasmid DNA encoding VEGF | Mouse burn wound model |
pDNA-VEGF accelerated excisional burn wound healing by inhibiting inflammatory response. Specifically, IL-1 β or TNF- α expression were significantly reduced, thus promoting microvascular formation. | [ |
|
| |||
| Smart flexible electronics-integrated wound dressing | Pig full thickness wound model |
Wound status in real time was monitored. Bacterial infection was detected and wounds were effectively treated | [ |